<quoted text>The burden of proof lies on the idiot who decides to claim that "gods are possible"That's how logic works your moron. It's been 6 months and you still don't know what the burden of proof means.

That's why you keep running away from the dictionary. You are the one who made a positive claim, and just made it again right now. Even after I've informed you numerous times over about how the scientific method works. I have no doubt that you'll avoid this as you have for must be 8 months by now, but I'm just giving you another opportunity to redeem yourself for lying about me and Chimney or if your ego is too fundamentalist to allow you to do so. Heck, even just admit you made a mistake when you denied the existence of lizards, that would be at least be something.

<quoted text>That's why you keep running away from the dictionary. You are the one who made a positive claim, and just made it again right now. Even after I've informed you numerous times over about how the scientific method works. I have no doubt that you'll avoid this as you have for must be 8 months by now, but I'm just giving you another opportunity to redeem yourself for lying about me and Chimney or if your ego is too fundamentalist to allow you to do so. Heck, even just admit you made a mistake when you denied the existence of lizards, that would be at least be something.

Actually, he made a negative claim which is impossible to prove because it is 'non falsifiable'. A positive claim would be that there 'is' a god. If it were true it could be proven. It could be tested and sustained. So far, that claim has been tested but not sustained by any tangable evidence.I has failed every logical test so rational thinking would not allow you to think that a god exists.

<quoted text>Actually, he made a negative claim which is impossible to prove because it is 'non falsifiable'.

Apologies, you are pretty much correct here. Perhaps what I could say is that he's making a *positive assertion* of a negative, which is, as you say, non-falsifiable.

And as it's not falsifiable, due to his claim being somewhat of an absolute, it's not scientific. For scientific claims need to be falsifiable. Which is why I've asked him for many months to describe the scientific test he performed that falsified God. He has not provided that - probably because he has not performed that test, or even knows what such a test would entail.

redneck wrote:

A positive claim would be that there 'is' a god.

Agreed. A claim I have not made for or against either way.

redneck wrote:

If it were true it could be proven.

At the risk of sounding pedantic, "proof" is only for math and alcohol. Nothing in science can be "proven", as science is ALWAYS tentative, as no matter how certain things appear to be, it is always open to the potential of new evidence being discovered later that may falsify a currently accepted concept. This is because potential falsification is essential to science, and is what is used to make testable scientific predictions.

As I say, sorry if it sounds pedantic but it's just that there are so many creationists around who constantly misuse and/or misunderstand words as they pertain to science.

redneck wrote:

If it were true it could be proven. It could be tested and sustained.

Not necessarily. It may simply be that we have not the ability or technology for this yet. I present alien life as another example, the detection of which is constrained by rather large barriers of practicality.

redneck wrote:

So far, that claim has been tested but not sustained by any tangable evidence.I has failed every logical test so rational thinking would not allow you to think that a god exists.

Respectfully I disagree, I don't think it can be tested. The reason being there is a complete lack of testable evidence. Hence it is not falsifiable. I agree that many religious claims are indeed testable, and most have been falsified (such as global flood, 6,000 year old Earth, etc). Other tests have been tried but have been ill thought out (such as Mario Buregard's neurological tests on religious experiences which left him with results that were "inconclusive"). But otherwise the primary concept that (a) God exists and created the universe has no evidence, is not testable, and so not falsifiable. Ergo it is not scientific.

Based on that alone, one may say that without evidence there is no reason to think that such an entity exists. But science does not rule out its potential a priori, it is still open to the possibility. All it demands is one present objectively verifiable testable evidence that can be subjected to the scientific method. So far no-one has been able to do that.

<quoted text>Apologies, you are pretty much correct here. Perhaps what I could say is that he's making a *positive assertion* of a negative, which is, as you say, non-falsifiable.And as it's not falsifiable, due to his claim being somewhat of an absolute, it's not scientific. For scientific claims need to be falsifiable. Which is why I've asked him for many months to describe the scientific test he performed that falsified God. He has not provided that - probably because he has not performed that test, or even knows what such a test would entail.<quoted text>Agreed. A claim I have not made for or against either way.<quoted text>At the risk of sounding pedantic, "proof" is only for math and alcohol. Nothing in science can be "proven", as science is ALWAYS tentative, as no matter how certain things appear to be, it is always open to the potential of new evidence being discovered later that may falsify a currently accepted concept. This is because potential falsification is essential to science, and is what is used to make testable scientific predictions.As I say, sorry if it sounds pedantic but it's just that there are so many creationists around who constantly misuse and/or misunderstand words as they pertain to science.<quoted text>Not necessarily. It may simply be that we have not the ability or technology for this yet. I present alien life as another example, the detection of which is constrained by rather large barriers of practicality.<quoted text>Respectfully I disagree, I don't think it can be tested. The reason being there is a complete lack of testable evidence. Hence it is not falsifiable. I agree that many religious claims are indeed testable, and most have been falsified (such as global flood, 6,000 year old Earth, etc). Other tests have been tried but have been ill thought out (such as Mario Buregard's neurological tests on religious experiences which left him with results that were "inconclusive"). But otherwise the primary concept that (a) God exists and created the universe has no evidence, is not testable, and so not falsifiable. Ergo it is not scientific.Based on that alone, one may say that without evidence there is no reason to think that such an entity exists. But science does not rule out its potential a priori, it is still open to the possibility. All it demands is one present objectively verifiable testable evidence that can be subjected to the scientific method. So far no-one has been able to do that.

You did good until you got to 'proof'.Science searches for and finds proof. Gravity,evolution,elements and what they create are proven.If it exists it is measurable. You diverted from the truth.

<quoted text>You did good until you got to 'proof'.Science searches for and finds proof. Gravity,evolution,elements and what they create are proven.

No, not proven. Proof is an absolute - it's why we have the saying "Proof is for maths and alcohol". Science is always open to the potential of falsification, therefore in that sense nothing is ever "proven". Disproven perhaps, but never proved. For example, the theory of gravity was never "proven", and was superseded by Einstein's theory of relativity.

redneck wrote:

If it exists it is measurable. You diverted from the truth.

I disagree, it is only measurable if we have access to evidence. Aliens may exist. The multiverse may exist. But if they exist we currently don't have access to the evidence.

<quoted text>Actually, he made a negative claim which is impossible to prove because it is 'non falsifiable'. A positive claim would be that there 'is' a god. If it were true it could be proven. It could be tested and sustained. So far, that claim has been tested but not sustained by any tangable evidence.I has failed every logical test so rational thinking would not allow you to think that a god exists.

Thanks for the adding to this thread. Maybe we can all educated the arrogant dude.

<quoted text>You did good until you got to 'proof'.Science searches for and finds proof. Gravity,evolution,elements and what they create are proven.If it exists it is measurable. You diverted from the truth.

Give him a few more weeks until the logic filters through the ignorace built up with him dealing with Nuggin...

No apology was directed at you, nor is it required. Thanks once again for providing another example of your disingenuousness.

-Skeptic- wrote:

<quoted text>Give him a few more weeks until the logic filters through the ignorace built up with him dealing with Nuggin...

Ad hom. I haven't been dealing with Nuggin, I've been dealing with you. Quite adequately I might add. This is why you are not only hiding behind others on your Nuggin thread, but also the aliens and evolution thread, but this one too. You are quite simply unable to articulate an argument.

-Skeptic- wrote:

It's kind of sad I have to make separate threads for each and every moron who can't be bothered to look up the burden of proof.

Yes, it is quite sad that you have to spend your life dedicating threads to ad hom people who you are unable to debate. This apparently includes creationists who are dumb enough to think the Earth could be 6,000 years old.

Skeptic wrote:

<quoted text>This argument ignores the existence of the baseline a-priori state, which all logic must reference to be meaningful or valid.The a-priori for the universe is "nothing". So to use the word "god", one would have to define it and prove it exists, first.Since [redneck's argument] hence, god is impossible, as of now and all previous possibilities.QED mofo

Ah, "logic". An abstraction which is meaningless unless applied to reality. The universe is quite obviously "something", and the word "god" has been used since loooooong before you were born, even if there is no such thing. Meaning you are once again incorrect. You can make all the "logical" arguments you wish, but unless applied to reality they don't mean anything as it ultimately amounts to little more than philosophical masturbation. Once again you are attempting to set up your own philosophical axioms which must not be violated, but reality does not care. Bacteria still existed before 1500 AD even though no-one could explain it or proved it existed, the African wildebeest I told you about still existed even though it had not been recorded, and aliens could still exist even though we have zero evidence. Your statement that "If there's no evidence then it's impossible!" is still a fallacious non-falsifiable absolute which has no bearing on science.

Now I know that none of this personally means diddly-squat to you, but that doesn't matter. However you DID blatantly LIE about both Chimney and myself, so we're still waiting for that apology. However I don't expect fundies to do any such thing.

<quoted text>No apology was directed at you, nor is it required. Thanks once again for providing another example of your disingenuousness.<quoted text>Ad hom. I haven't been dealing with Nuggin, I've been dealing with you. Quite adequately I might add. This is why you are not only hiding behind others on your Nuggin thread, but also the aliens and evolution thread, but this one too. You are quite simply unable to articulate an argument.<quoted text>Yes, it is quite sad that you have to spend your life dedicating threads to ad hom people who you are unable to debate. This apparently includes creationists who are dumb enough to think the Earth could be 6,000 years old.<quoted text>Ah, "logic". An abstraction which is meaningless unless applied to reality. The universe is quite obviously "something", and the word "god" has been used since loooooong before you were born, even if there is no such thing. Meaning you are once again incorrect. You can make all the "logical" arguments you wish, but unless applied to reality they don't mean anything as it ultimately amounts to little more than philosophical masturbation. Once again you are attempting to set up your own philosophical axioms which must not be violated, but reality does not care. Bacteria still existed before 1500 AD even though no-one could explain it or proved it existed, the African wildebeest I told you about still existed even though it had not been recorded, and aliens could still exist even though we have zero evidence. Your statement that "If there's no evidence then it's impossible!" is still a fallacious non-falsifiable absolute which has no bearing on science.Now I know that none of this personally means diddly-squat to you, but that doesn't matter. However you DID blatantly LIE about both Chimney and myself, so we're still waiting for that apology. However I don't expect fundies to do any such thing.

You can keep typing lies, but don't expect anyone to take anything you have to say seriously.

I mean you accuse me of denying lizards. That tells anyone and everyone how valuable your opinions about atheism really are.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.